Ryedale District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jul 2009

The complainant requested copies of any correspondence between the council and the Local Government Ombudsman between January 2007 and June 2007. The Commissioner understands that this primarily relates to an investigation carried out by the Ombudsman into allegations of maladministration by the council. A report was published by the Ombudsman on 31 May 2007 as a result of this investigation. The council responded to the complainant claiming that the information was exempt from disclosure as section 44(I)(a)and (c) (statutory prohibition) applied. It stated that the information was provided to the council by the Ombudsman as part of her investigation and the prohibition from disclosure in section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 applied. It also claimed that the information was exempt under section 41 (Information held in confidence). The Commissioner has considered the information and it is his decision that some of the information is the personal data of the complainant. His decision is that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. The council does however need to reconsider whether this information should be disclosed to the complainant under access rights provided by section 7 of that Act. The Commissioner has also considered the application of section 44 to the information which is not the personal data of the complainant. He is satisfied that the remaining information falls within the scope of the statutory prohibition on disclosure in section 32(2) of the LGA. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that section 44(1) of the Act is applicable to that information. He has not therefore considered the application of section 41 further.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld


[2009] UKICO FS50194034




England and Wales


Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.532110